Rajendra Prasad & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

R.C. Khulbe, J

Since, both the petitions arise out of the same crime number, therefore, they are clubbed together and are being decided by a common order for

sake of brevity.

Present criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the cognizance order dated 08.08.2018 and

the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 3841 of 2018, arises out of case crime no. 43 of 2018, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504,

506, 498A of IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Dehradun.

The above numbered compromise applications have been filed on behalf of the parties with a prayer that the parties have buried their differences

and have settled their dispute amicably. The compromise is on the record, duly notarized by the Notary, wherein it has clearly mentioned that opposite

party no. 2 Khushboo Sharma does not want to prosecute the applicants and the dispute has been amicably settled between them.

Offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 504 IPC are compoundable offences within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. whereas offences

punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable. Present matter relates to a matrimonial discord

which has now been amicably settled between the parties and a compromise has taken place between them.

The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to non-compoundable offences in the case of B. S. Joshi and others

vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and has held as below:

“If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of

power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a

power.â€​

Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nikhil Merchant vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008 AIR SCW 7501 and Dimpey Gujral vs Union

Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, [2013 (123) AIC 119 (S.C.) has permitted compounding of such type of offences,

which are otherwise non-compoundable, within the scheme of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. It was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that the inherent power

of the Court will not come in the way of compounding of otherwise non-compoundable offences. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs.State of

Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, has observed, in the context of such cases, as under:

“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal

proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for

compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be

exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of

any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim

have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before

exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental

depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the

offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise

between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences

committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving

such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes

of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the

offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature

and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,

because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal

case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case

despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be

unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would

tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends

of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court

shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.â€​

Since the complainant, has settled the dispute amicably with the applicants and does not want to prosecute the applicants further, therefore, the

complainant (respondent herein), should be permitted to compound such offences against the applicants.

In view of the above, compromise application is allowed. As a consequence of the same, entire proceedings of criminal case no. 3841 of 2018,

arises out of case crime no. 43 of 2018, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A of IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of IV Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise arrived

at between the parties.

Applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are thus disposed.